Durability and Security are kind of interchangeable (assuming a "new" coin) as it depends what the development team created and who has checked the actual code.

Easily transactable is Moderate as it usually requires purchasing a "new coin" with bitcoin or an existing alt-coin someone owns. It isn't easy to transact if others don't own the alt you do obviously.

Scarcity is obviously not always guaranteed when an altcoin launches as well as decentralization.

This way, when people talk about Bitcoin and Crypto Currency, there is at least some illustration for a complete newbie to separate the differences between the generic term and the store of value.

While I agree with most of charts made like that one specifically, there's always going to be bias. You know what's missing in that table that's very important? User friendliness. Bitcoin might be the currency of the future until the end of mankind, but if it isn't easy to use for our parents and grandparents or non tech-savvy people in general, then probably forget bitcoin as a currency for payments for now. Most people aren't even willing to remember their passwords. We're simply not there yet. Right now, bitcoin is a store of value for countries with economic crises, and for speculation.

While I agree with most of charts made like that one specifically, there's always going to be bias. You know what's missing in that table that's very important? User friendliness. Bitcoin might be the currency of the future until the end of mankind, but if it isn't easy to use for our parents and grandparents or non tech-savvy people in general, then probably forget bitcoin as a currency for payments for now. Most people aren't even willing to remember their passwords. We're simply not there yet. Right now, bitcoin is a store of value for countries with economic crises, and for speculation.

More of a trade off than a bias. Easily Transactable could change to Moderate for Bitcoin, however it DOES solve problems to transact for many people that banks don't currently.

Plenty of people use bitcoin to send money back home over using something like western union. Or to send large wires that banks will have to approve and note why you are sending X amount to "so and so."

See your point though, we DO need better wallets and easier transfers between wallets.

More of a trade off than a bias. Easily Transactable could change to Moderate for Bitcoin, however it DOES solve problems to transact for many people that banks don't currently.

Plenty of people use bitcoin to send money back home over using something like western union. Or to send large wires that banks will have to approve and note why you are sending X amount to "so and so."

See your point though, we DO need better wallets and easier transfers between wallets.

Agree. Bitcoin is just mostly for decently tech-savvy millennials(for now, at least), and some boomers in the tech industry here and there(not including people who just leave their funds on Coinbase). I'm really surprised that not enough people use bitcoin for overseas transfers though like you said. Where I'm at, the fees are probably 10% or something I think? Like what the hell. I'd heavily prefer the 1-2%(I think) fees from converting bitcoin <-> fiat on local exchanges.

Nice comparison!However, I also agree about user-friendliness should be mentioned in the above table. I also propose one more variable to discuss, that is "offline use" or similar. The major drawback of bitcoin is too reliant on the internet. While bitcoin/crypto might flourish in many years to come, at the moment, many places still don't have a stable internet connection (or no connection at all).People need time to treat bitcoin as (or more) valuable as gold or cash since these assets have hundred years of history in human civilization.

I wonder if we can really consider fungibility to be "high" for Bitcoin. At the protocol level, yes, but surely not all outputs are treated as interchangeable by humans. Blockchain/taint analysis is a booming industry now, and the US government is now publicly identifying Bitcoin addresses that are linked to sanctioned individuals. Freshly mined coins carry a price premium due to their lack of history. I'm sure this trend will continue.

I also hesitate to call altcoin security "moderate." Many coins are highly insecure and prone to 51% attacks.

I also propose one more variable to discuss, that is "offline use" or similar. The major drawback of bitcoin is too reliant on the internet.

It's definitely an interesting subject. I know of people transacting with physical Bitcoins which requires no internet connection at all. It's basically transacting in private keys, but it seems to work very well if you are dealing with a trusted party. I have bought unfunded Denarium Bitcoins and funded them myself to use at whatever point in time may there not be an internet connection available.

The best thing is that you can move value without anyone else noticing anything, because the funds don't move on-chain. I expect this field to bloom even more in the forthcoming years, all to make sure the trust aspect becomes less of an obstacle with usefulness intact.

"offline use" or similar. The major drawback of bitcoin is too reliant on the internet. While bitcoin/crypto might flourish in many years to come, at the moment, many places still don't have a stable internet connection (or no connection at all).People need time to treat bitcoin as (or more) valuable as gold or cash since these assets have hundred years of history in human civilization.

Agree. Bitcoin is just mostly for decently tech-savvy millennials(for now, at least), and some boomers in the tech industry here and there(not including people who just leave their funds on Coinbase). I'm really surprised that not enough people use bitcoin for overseas transfers though like you said. Where I'm at, the fees are probably 10% or something I think? Like what the hell. I'd heavily prefer the 1-2%(I think) fees from converting bitcoin <-> fiat on local exchanges.

If you think about how many "things" have been created in "crypto" and we still dont have a tap to tap payment method...... even if the confirmation takes awhile, it's surprising nobody has launched an EASY wallet for people to transfer small amounts.

If wallets aren't on someone's list as an obvious solution people NEED, especially during a bear market, we're in trouble whenever bitcoin becomes "interesting" to the masses again.

lol That sounds great! Will those tables make sense only in the bear market? The generic terms and the store of value can be put in the same line. The store of value heavily fluctuates and can be used as a metric to make logical decisions.

This is something that everyone that is criticizing bitcoin for not having "intrinsic value" should take a look at.

People don't realize this, but it's the fundamentals that bitcoin is run under that makes it valuable. It is decentralized, just like gold, yet it is much more portable and divisible that gold can ever be. It doesn't have the inflationary traits that fiat does, which means that in the long term prices should act as a hedge against fiat inflation, if demand for bitcoin as a currency/store of value stays the same.

It's these utilities that bitcoin has that gives it value. Unlike what others say, fiat is the complete opposite when it comes to it having intrinsic value. The central bank can print more of it as we speak, and hyperinflation resulting from mismanagement is common. Bitcoin solves the issues of both centralized currencies being untrustworthy for storing wealth in the long run, and gold being too inconvenient to deal with. Those are ultimately the reasons for me to hold bitcoin for the long run.

i don't think anybody is crediting the bear market to altcoins. there have been times when the massive dumps of altcoins has initiated a drop in bitcoin and placed some pressure on bitcoin price but they are not the whole reason.

Quote

To include Alt-coins along with bitcoin

the image is wrong simply because you are including one column that says "crypto". what the hell is "crypto"? cryptocurrency or altcoins consists of more than 2000 different projects! and you can't categorize all of them in one column and then compare THAT with bitcoin. it is like comparing gold with elements instead of comparing gold with platinum, aluminum,... so for example when you say High for fungability which coin do you have in mind? i can think of hundreds that aren't and dozens that are.or when you say low for decentralized again i can think of dozens that are decentralized while many aren't.

I also propose one more variable to discuss, that is "offline use" or similar. The major drawback of bitcoin is too reliant on the internet.

It's definitely an interesting subject. I know of people transacting with physical Bitcoins which requires no internet connection at all. It's basically transacting in private keys, but it seems to work very well if you are dealing with a trusted party. I have bought unfunded Denarium Bitcoins and funded them myself to use at whatever point in time may there not be an internet connection available.

That only seems to work with a trusted party. Otherwise you need an internet connection to prove that a bearer instrument (like an Opendime) really contains bitcoins. The seller might know the Opendime is loaded, but the buyer doesn't.

The best thing is that you can move value without anyone else noticing anything, because the funds don't move on-chain. I expect this field to bloom even more in the forthcoming years, all to make sure the trust aspect becomes less of an obstacle with usefulness intact.

I like the idea of keeping funds static as well, which is why I find Opendimes so appealing. However, I'm slightly paranoid they could be tampered with to reveal the private key without anyone knowing.

Durability and Security are kind of interchangeable (assuming a "new" coin) as it depends what the development team created and who has checked the actual code.

this is one of the biggest problems with altcoins which is usually overlooked. it is partly about code review by others but the main thing about this serious problem is lack of testing which comes from lack of usage. for example look at bitcoin, it is the most used and as a result the bugs come out faster and you can consider bitcoin today as battle hardened. but it is not true about altcoins since they are not used enough for their bugs to come out.

Nice comparison! However, I also agree about user-friendliness should be mentioned in the above table. I also propose one more variable to discuss, that is "offline use" or similar. The major drawback of bitcoin is too reliant on the internet. While bitcoin/crypto might flourish in many years to come, at the moment, many places still don't have a stable internet connection (or no connection at all). People need time to treat bitcoin as (or more) valuable as gold or cash since these assets have hundred years of history in human civilization.

This can be the reason why while we are welcoming change we should not assume that all people can go for cryptocurrency as there are situations when technology is not available. Can you imagine if there will no internet or there will no gadget...how can you pay for something you direly need to buy? Or if you are buying something from traditional farmers who don't care about Bitcoin? Cryptocurrency should be taken as an additional choice we can use and not a total replacement for things that are still working. We should not be blinded with realities surrounding us otherwise we can be creating problems instead of solutions.

can we really call this a bear market? a bear market is where prices continue to fall and it is best to sell than buy. what we have in bitcoin was a bear market at least 4 months ago and it ended then we had an unexpected and unexplainable drop which evaporated the buy support and price dropped to a lower price. I don't call that a bear market.

as for the comparison I think these types of comparison are not exactly the best. for example comparing bitcoin with fiat makes sense because you are comparing two forms of currency but comparing bitcoin to gold doesn't since gold has not been a currency for centuries.

@1Referee @squatterActually, for a small amount of money, a gift card/voucher will do the job. Buyers only have to scratch the back of the card to get the private key. Perhaps a QR code would be beautiful. Yeah, it still requires a trusted party as the card issuer (and of course the card seller). But for $5 or $10 gift card, the risk is not that big. It's similar to print your paper wallet with $5 or $10 worth of BTC inside it.

But still, users need to use the internet to swipe/use the private key.

Nice comparison! However, I also agree about user-friendliness should be mentioned in the above table. I also propose one more variable to discuss, that is "offline use" or similar. The major drawback of bitcoin is too reliant on the internet. While bitcoin/crypto might flourish in many years to come, at the moment, many places still don't have a stable internet connection (or no connection at all). People need time to treat bitcoin as (or more) valuable as gold or cash since these assets have hundred years of history in human civilization.

This can be the reason why while we are welcoming change we should not assume that all people can go for cryptocurrency as there are situations when technology is not available. Can you imagine if there will no internet or there will no gadget...how can you pay for something you direly need to buy? Or if you are buying something from traditional farmers who don't care about Bitcoin? Cryptocurrency should be taken as an additional choice we can use and not a total replacement for things that are still working. We should not be blinded with realities surrounding us otherwise we can be creating problems instead of solutions.

The places technology aren't available though still become easier to serve for crypto.

The alternative is to build banks in the area's without banks currently. Whereas internet is becoming available in more places and cell phones are cheap as hell around the world.

If it were easier to build banks in these areas, there wouldn't be 2 billion people unbanked currently.

can we really call this a bear market? a bear market is where prices continue to fall and it is best to sell than buy. what we have in bitcoin was a bear market at least 4 months ago and it ended then we had an unexpected and unexplainable drop which evaporated the buy support and price dropped to a lower price. I don't call that a bear market.

Everyone is calling for a $1000 - $1200 BTC coming, there is no support at the current level.

Very experienced traders (Tone Vays, Nick Core) were hoping Tyler Jenkins was off with his call months ago.

8:00 mark https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KBUZXG2jeVU

Old men don't lie about this stuff ;D

Hate to say it but it doesn't look like a good buy until that price range comes in.

** Note: For anyone interested in his hyperwave theory and how long he has traded for wall street based on this trading theory (other traders are just starting to learn his method) he goes into some details here:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=50ruB0sbwIg

Everyone is calling for a $1000 - $1200 BTC coming, there is no support at the current level.

actually, the $3000 zone held as a monthly pivot twice last year. and we have long term MA support right above and below $3k. this is the first time since the december 2017 crash that we've approached a historical support level.

also, when everyone predicts the same thing, it never happens. price targets at $1500 and below are a dime a dozen these days. it's certainly possible, but it really seems like bears are getting too confident.

price targets at $1500 and below are a dime a dozen these days. it's certainly possible, but it really seems like bears are getting too confident.

Normally you would be right but he isn't a "dime a dozen" analyst.

Sold his position in bitcoin at 18,000 last year (the videos are still on his youtube channel from last year).

Predicted the .com bubble and 1987 bond market crash when he was on wall street.

And he loves bitcoin..... his call is still $1,000.

it is a well known fact that all those who waste their time "selling advice" instead of "trading" are not really experts. specially someone who is talking about bitcoin at this time which clearly is only shooting in the dark!

these days people are making a lot of silly guesses about bitcoin. and you know what, some of them do come true! but that doesn't make them an expert. in my view someone who is calling $1000 is an idiot not because i think it is impossible but because there is no reason for it to be possible. it is basically a price below the start of last rally!

price targets at $1500 and below are a dime a dozen these days. it's certainly possible, but it really seems like bears are getting too confident.

Normally you would be right but he isn't a "dime a dozen" analyst.

Sold his position in bitcoin at 18,000 last year (the videos are still on his youtube channel from last year).

Predicted the .com bubble and 1987 bond market crash when he was on wall street.

And he loves bitcoin..... his call is still $1,000.

it is a well known fact that all those who waste their time "selling advice" instead of "trading" are not really experts. specially someone who is talking about bitcoin at this time which clearly is only shooting in the dark!

these days people are making a lot of silly guesses about bitcoin. and you know what, some of them do come true! but that doesn't make them an expert. in my view someone who is calling $1000 is an idiot not because i think it is impossible but because there is no reason for it to be possible. it is basically a price below the start of last rally!

Correct, that is why we only follow/mention the traders that left wall street and only look for positions to accumulate more Bitcoin.

Very experienced traders (Tone Vays, Nick Core) were hoping Tyler Jenkins was off with his call months ago.

8:00 mark https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KBUZXG2jeVU

** Note: For anyone interested in his hyperwave theory and how long he has traded for wall street based on this trading theory (other traders are just starting to learn his method) he goes into some details here:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=50ruB0sbwIg

There aren't a lot of people who successfully traded on wall street that now primarily chart bitcoin and offer free videos on youtube, with accurate predictions on where the buy and sell levels are.

In cryptocurrency market, bitcoin dominate more than 50% in market cap value. As main base currency in cryptomarket, bitcoin holding an important role because its main currency, but i think as investment, bitcoin more trusted compare altcoin

price targets at $1500 and below are a dime a dozen these days. it's certainly possible, but it really seems like bears are getting too confident.

Normally you would be right but he isn't a "dime a dozen" analyst.

Sold his position in bitcoin at 18,000 last year (the videos are still on his youtube channel from last year).

Predicted the .com bubble and 1987 bond market crash when he was on wall street.

And he loves bitcoin..... his call is still $1,000.

you're cherry picking. even if he's an excellent analyst, he has undoubtedly been wrong many hundreds or thousands of times. great traders still get it wrong half the time.

it's nothing against him personally. it's just that when everyone expects the same thing, it never happens. everyone and their grandma thinks they can get $1000 coins now. i won't rule it out, but i wouldn't be particularly confident either.

i think gold and bitcoin have the big differences, the first different is bitcoin don't have the physic value, and gold has the physic value, and then the second is bitcoin has the limit amount, 21 Million BTC. but in Gold, we don't know about the limit amount, right? is it 1 ton of gold more? or less? so dont campapre bitcon with gold because i think it down have any relation

There are many differences from every transaction and investment tool that we have. Gold has a physical and a form that can be seen and it seems the value is also up and down but the market, people still keep it. Bitcoin has properties that cannot be controlled so prices go up and down sometimes uncontrollable but the community is also strong and anonymous. Each has advantages and advantages that provide benefits to all of us.

I guess people do look at certain cryptos, that are in fact completely centralised and probably no different or perhaps even worse than holding fiat currency, and confuse them with bitcoin, which is probably the most decentralised and most practical cryptocurrency at this stage.

A lot of these cryptos, including state issued ones, don't offer the 'traits of money' that are listed here for bitcoin at all. If the supply or issuance of a token is centralised, or a single party holds ultimate control over a certain project, it's really no good as currency at all.

It should be quite obvious to any even marginally experienced bitcoin user to realise the benefits of bitcoin, at this stage, compared to fiat currencies though. Its irreversibility, its decentralisation, and the fact that it exists natively to the virtual world all mean that it is a great form of money, or at least a very convenient long term store of value.

I guess people do look at certain cryptos, that are in fact completely centralised and probably no different or perhaps even worse than holding fiat currency, and confuse them with bitcoin, which is probably the most decentralised and most practical cryptocurrency at this stage.

A lot of these cryptos, including state issued ones, don't offer the 'traits of money' that are listed here for bitcoin at all. If the supply or issuance of a token is centralised, or a single party holds ultimate control over a certain project, it's really no good as currency at all.

It should be quite obvious to any even marginally experienced bitcoin user to realise the benefits of bitcoin, at this stage, compared to fiat currencies though. Its irreversibility, its decentralisation, and the fact that it exists natively to the virtual world all mean that it is a great form of money, or at least a very convenient long term store of value.

Long term store of value,

Yesterday $20k (fiat), tomorrow $100 USD (Fiat), so I lose say 99% of my wealth by holding BTC for 1-2 years, and with a straight face you call that a 'long term store of value'??? Seriously are you bat shit crazy? Or do you think its "coming back"? NOT

Bitcoin and Altcoin should not be compared according to me, because they are of equal value and sometimes of equal usage. Gold is considered an investment and a material to make jewelry. Gold investments are good but I prefer stocks more than Gold if the two are compared. And fiat needs no comparison, it is a necessity. In future, the respective governments may bring in crypto tech, but the cryptocurrencies will be based on the fiat of the respective country.

Bitcoin has a new digital technology , making it faster , more reliable and safer than fiat money and gold . But it has a limited number of coins, which will not allow it to become a reliable financial instrument and replace fiat as a monetary unit .

Old people with traditional mindset about store of value, must be choosing gold because its already known for centuries, but young people prefer bitcoin because its more flexible and its more secure. I think both are good investment as long we keep it for long term

Correct, that is why we only follow/mention the traders that left wall street and only look for positions to accumulate more Bitcoin.

i am not saying they are all bad and should not be seen. just saying that when people watch these things they also have to keep in mind that these people aren't spending their most valuable asset (time) out of the goodness of their hearts.being positive about bitcoin and buying it doesn't make them any more right than being negative about it and selling it.

Quote

... and offer free videos on youtube, ...

they are monetizing their contents one way or another. so it is not exactly "free". ;)

looking at the table at the beginning of the post, I think indeed cryptocurrency has many advantages. however, of course if I am in the same choice, I will choose gold. That is because the price of gold continues to rise steadily, and can be used anywhere.

I guess people do look at certain cryptos, that are in fact completely centralised and probably no different or perhaps even worse than holding fiat currency, and confuse them with bitcoin, which is probably the most decentralised and most practical cryptocurrency at this stage.

A lot of these cryptos, including state issued ones, don't offer the 'traits of money' that are listed here for bitcoin at all. If the supply or issuance of a token is centralised, or a single party holds ultimate control over a certain project, it's really no good as currency at all.

It should be quite obvious to any even marginally experienced bitcoin user to realise the benefits of bitcoin, at this stage, compared to fiat currencies though. Its irreversibility, its decentralisation, and the fact that it exists natively to the virtual world all mean that it is a great form of money, or at least a very convenient long term store of value.

Long term store of value,

Yesterday $20k (fiat), tomorrow $100 USD (Fiat), so I lose say 99% of my wealth by holding BTC for 1-2 years, and with a straight face you call that a 'long term store of value'??? Seriously are you bat shit crazy? Or do you think its "coming back"? NOT

You disregard math and common sense to make a negative point? Good for you...

The 5, 4, 3 years of storing fiat into bitcoin had 10-1000% returns on the amount people buying bitcoin could remove later via fiat.

Some hold a new asset class like that, some will want to come back in the next dip and take profit.

Imagine if people bought with only the intention of offsetting inflation. Bitcoin could be the greatest store of value around today.

Now that hedge funds are playing around, it's just part of buying bitcoin that you need a comfortable dip to purchase and hold.

looking at the table at the beginning of the post, I think indeed cryptocurrency has many advantages. however, of course if I am in the same choice, I will choose gold. That is because the price of gold continues to rise steadily, and can be used anywhere.

In his plea to conspiracy and commodities fraud in federal court in Connecticut, Edmonds admitted that he and other traders sought to manipulate futures markets for gold, silver, platinum and palladium on the Nymex and Comex exchanges, prosecutors said.

I think it's a little unfair, now that things are going badly, try to blame the alts for that, remember that last year btc and many alts reached their all-time high thanks to the popularity of the ICOs, which precisely created this waste of alts now.

I think it's a little unfair, now that things are going badly, try to blame the alts for that, remember that last year btc and many alts reached their all-time high thanks to the popularity of the ICOs, which precisely created this waste of alts now.

Forcing Alts to prove actual value isn't a BAD thing for people in "crypto"

Alt value = ?!?!?! BTC Value = funded every alt

Which are people supposed to valuelong term.

Which are people supposed to "wait and see" what everyone agrees the true value is, after the current "hype" dies.

For me, altcoins are more important than Bitcoin. Blockchain has many usecases and in the future Bitcoin will not have as many usescases as altcoins.

It's the only crypto currency that has been adopted and used as a "currency."

There is no value in "blockchain technology" while marketers are trying to hype the masses on it because there are too many marketers trying to hype the masses on bullshit. Blockchain is a fancy word for digital ledger...that has never been new and never will be new.

There aren't as many great ideas and projects as the people invested in altcoins want people to believe.

We either support 3-4 projects in the "cryptocurrency space" (ALWAYS including Bitcoin) or we watch bitcoin's value decline over time as all the scammers walk away with people's money.

Denying bitcoin funds every altcoin would be moronic, finding the actual value in an altcoin is very hard.

You are too pushy that bitcoin is better, but reality is not what you think. It is true, in the table that you give, bitcoin is able to excel on all sides, but the question is, why until now bitcoin cannot be adopted massively by all countries in the world, while gold and USD can be widely adoptedfrom this statement, it can be concluded that you judge something subjectively,

You are too pushy that bitcoin is better, but reality is not what you think. It is true, in the table that you give, bitcoin is able to excel on all sides, but the question is, why until now bitcoin cannot be adopted massively by all countries in the world, while gold and USD can be widely adoptedfrom this statement, it can be concluded that you judge something subjectively,

why? it is so simple. bitcoin has been around about 10 years while Gold and USD has been around for a much longer time (USD from 1862 or 157 years and gold is about7000 years ago (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gold_mining)). in other words you are comparing a toddler with an ancient and you are expecting this toddler to beat that strong ancient in an arm wrestle!!!

not to mention that you don't see people constantly (as in 24/7) spread FUD about gold and USD even though you can find a lot of corruption in both of them specially in US dollar! for example when was the last time you heard a gigantic bank or a big market player call US government fraudulent? the answer is never. but you hear JPMorgan call bitcoin a fraud and other names almost every week :Dyou can't expect bitcoin mass adoption to happen "fast" when there is this much opposing force against it trying to slow it down.

Everyone on bitcointalk should know that bitcoin is the only crypto with real value. Logic and reason aren't mandatory here though.

What is "real value?" So much of Bitcoin's value is tied to speculation about future usage. It would be silly to say today's price is based on current network value. The same applies to altcoins.

Just because Bitcoin is the best cryptocurrency doesn't mean it's the only valuable one. Bitcoin can't and won't integrate most features (including private/confidential transactions) for political reasons. It will never use alternative consensus or scaling mechanisms (like proof-of-___ or sharding). I think it's naive to assume that no use cases or superior technological approaches will ever emerge from altcoins.

Based on these charts, we can see that bitcoin has the most advantages. However, it also has some drawbacks. I think that in the future we will safely use bitcoin for payment and all the problems that bitcoin has now will be solved.

January 2nd 2014 bitcoin was "valued" at $802.00 January 3rd 2009 the first bitcoin was mined ($0 value).

People who bought bitcoin 5 years ago today had a 400% INCREASE in value.

If people just want to simply offset inflation over a 5 year period from holding the Dollar, Rand, Rupee, Pound, Euro, Yuan, Ruble, Lira or any other printed National Currency, Bitcoin has a use case now that could suggest it's more valuable than Gold.

If 10 years data doesn't create trust as a store of value, people are still able to hold fiat in a bank account and compare the difference in spending power fiat vs bitcoin over the next 5 and 10 years....

Bitcoin can't and won't integrate most features (including private/confidential transactions) for political reasons.

Do research before ignoring wasabi wallet and mixers that have existed for years. The privacy of bitcoin isn't part of the protocol (yet) but that doesn't mean privacy options aren't available and increasing.

It will never use alternative consensus or scaling mechanisms (like proof-of-___ or sharding). I think it's naive to assume that no use cases or superior technological approaches will ever emerge from altcoins.

It's also securely stored and transferred value without the need for 3rd parties for 9 years, none of the "other" supposedly better solutions have done anything to prove trust and security wouldn't be traded just to try something "new"

I think it's naive to assume that no use cases or superior technological approaches will ever emerge from altcoins.

How many cryptographic protocols, to securely store value and transfer it in a decentralized manner, have you created or maintained? Right. Perhaps you're opinion doesn't hold the weight you want to believe it does, unless you've contributed something to the actual protocol or an alternative/better solution...

January 2nd 2014 bitcoin was "valued" at $802.00 January 3rd 2009 the first bitcoin was mined ($0 value).

People who bought bitcoin 5 years ago today had a 400% INCREASE in value.

If people just want to simply offset inflation over a 5 year period from holding the Dollar, Rand, Rupee, Pound, Euro, Yuan, Ruble, Lira or any other printed National Currency, Bitcoin has a use case now that could suggest it's more valuable than Gold.

That doesn't address what you said.

Using your example: People who bought Litecoin at $1 in January 2015 are up 3400%. You said "Bitcoin is the only crypto with real value" so I still don't understand, what does "real value" mean? Why does Bitcoin have real value, but altcoins cannot?

Bitcoin has helped fund EVERY cryptocurrency since it was created.... it is THE ONLY VALUABLE ONE (currently) for a reason.

They have a symbiotic relationship. Altcoin markets suck bitcoins away from the fiat market, diminishing available supply and therefore encouraging higher Bitcoin prices. Altcoins also act as test beds for features that could eventually be ported to Bitcoin. For example, I think altcoins implementing Segwit facilitated implementing it in Bitcoin because they proved how safe it was at a time when Segwit was considered controversial.

Bitcoin can't and won't integrate most features (including private/confidential transactions) for political reasons.

Do research before ignoring wasabi wallet and mixers that have existed for years. The privacy of bitcoin isn't part of the protocol (yet) but that doesn't mean privacy options aren't available and increasing.

These don't compare to mandatory private transactions at the protocol level like Monero. Enforcing privacy at the protocol level would require a hard fork and would deteriorate Bitcoin's public and transparent ledger. That's extremely controversial and will therefore never happen without a network split.

It will never use alternative consensus or scaling mechanisms (like proof-of-___ or sharding). I think it's naive to assume that no use cases or superior technological approaches will ever emerge from altcoins.

It's also securely stored and transferred value without the need for 3rd parties for 9 years, none of the "other" supposedly better solutions have done anything to prove trust and security wouldn't be traded just to try something "new"

That doesn't prove anything about the future at all! Bitcoin is currently the most secure and reliable cryptocurrency. It's also the most scalable relative to its security. That doesn't mean that better technology won't emerge in the future.

I think it's naive to assume that no use cases or superior technological approaches will ever emerge from altcoins.

How many cryptographic protocols, to securely store value and transfer it in a decentralized manner, have you created or maintained? Right. Perhaps you're opinion doesn't hold the weight you want to believe it does, unless you've contributed something to the actual protocol or an alternative/better solution...

Your opinion holds no weight either, by that logic. I was merely trying to engage in discourse. Why are you so butthurt? Stay out of Bitcoin Discussion and go to the mailing lists if you only want to engage with Bitcoin developers specifically.

Everything would be fine if ....Take for example gold. Value? Indisputable. Common, ancient, without a center of emission, etc. That what does the cue ball aim for? For him they sold (and sell) what they would not sell for money.And now we divide the world economy into gold and .... we get some crazy prices for it. Something like megabax for 20g! However, in reality, the price is much lower.

Why?

Just by the fact that paper gold is “mined” a couple of orders of magnitude more real. I do not see anything that will prevent the cue ball from going along the same road. Derivatives, bitcoin accounts, blown volumes, ....

Altcoin category should not be as one unit. You can put something like ethereum or ripple in there but alts are so varied that some can easily be put in the HIGH group for everything. Good privacy coins like monero or zcash are arguably better than bitcoin so they shouldn't be lumped together as general alts

You are too pushy that bitcoin is better, but reality is not what you think. It is true, in the table that you give, bitcoin is able to excel on all sides, but the question is, why until now bitcoin cannot be adopted massively by all countries in the world, while gold and USD can be widely adoptedfrom this statement, it can be concluded that you judge something subjectively,

Cryptocurrency is very variable and it is unlikely that its development can be predicted from the graphs. No one could predict a sharp rise in the price of Bitcoin at the end of 2017 and the same sharp decline in its price after that and such a protracted process of a bear market. It is still difficult to say what will happen with Bitcoin in the future, since many problems, including its scalability, are not solved. Meanwhile, the cryptocurrency is developing very quickly. In terms of functional performance, Bitcoin may soon be among the latter.

Bitcoin can't and won't integrate most features (including private/confidential transactions) for political reasons.

Do research before ignoring wasabi wallet and mixers that have existed for years. The privacy of bitcoin isn't part of the protocol (yet) but that doesn't mean privacy options aren't available and increasing.

These don't compare to mandatory private transactions at the protocol level like Monero. Enforcing privacy at the protocol level would require a hard fork and would deteriorate Bitcoin's public and transparent ledger. That's extremely controversial and will therefore never happen without a network split

Somehow missed this interesting part

It is not only the requirement to hard fork that will hurt Bitcoin in case someone decides to add more privacy to it. We all know what happened to ZCash. I'm not very technically familiar with it, but as far as I know, it is basically a Bitcoin fork with more privacy in mind. And this privacy backfired heavily as a few regulated exchanges were forced to remove it because its transactions were hard to trace. Now imagine the same thing happening to Bitcoin once we have a similar feature introduced to it. So it is a double-edged sword of sorts

Bitcoin can't and won't integrate most features (including private/confidential transactions) for political reasons.

Do research before ignoring wasabi wallet and mixers that have existed for years. The privacy of bitcoin isn't part of the protocol (yet) but that doesn't mean privacy options aren't available and increasing.

These don't compare to mandatory private transactions at the protocol level like Monero. Enforcing privacy at the protocol level would require a hard fork and would deteriorate Bitcoin's public and transparent ledger. That's extremely controversial and will therefore never happen without a network split

Somehow missed this interesting part

It is not only the requirement to hard fork that will hurt Bitcoin in case someone decides to add more privacy to it. We all know what happened to ZCash. I'm not very technically familiar with it, but as far as I know, it is basically a Bitcoin fork with more privacy in mind. And this privacy backfired heavily as a few regulated exchanges were forced to remove it because its transactions were hard to trace. Now imagine the same thing happening to Bitcoin once we have a similar feature introduced to it. So it is a double-edged sword of sorts

Mimblewimble doesn't require a fork and is one of multiple solutions that are expected over the next decade.

Since we are only 10 years old in bitcoin, the need for privacy on bitcoin hasn't been a huge concern yet. If it were, the privacy coins would show more users and adoption, while bitcoin can still add sidechain and 2nd layer solutions at any point.

While I agree with most of charts made like that one specifically, there's always going to be bias. You know what's missing in that table that's very important? User friendliness. Bitcoin might be the currency of the future until the end of mankind, but if it isn't easy to use for our parents and grandparents or non tech-savvy people in general, then probably forget bitcoin as a currency for payments for now. Most people aren't even willing to remember their passwords. We're simply not there yet. Right now, bitcoin is a store of value for countries with economic crises, and for speculation.

Bitcoin is something new and is very related to advanced technology so that spreaders take a long time. so making bitcoin as a currency requires several stages, we must always believe that in time, bitcoin can be used as a legitimate payment instrument. if bitcoin is compared to gold then each has advantages and disadvantages so it is better to fill in the shortcomings to be better.

Bitcoin can't and won't integrate most features (including private/confidential transactions) for political reasons.

Do research before ignoring wasabi wallet and mixers that have existed for years. The privacy of bitcoin isn't part of the protocol (yet) but that doesn't mean privacy options aren't available and increasing.

These don't compare to mandatory private transactions at the protocol level like Monero. Enforcing privacy at the protocol level would require a hard fork and would deteriorate Bitcoin's public and transparent ledger. That's extremely controversial and will therefore never happen without a network split

Somehow missed this interesting part

It is not only the requirement to hard fork that will hurt Bitcoin in case someone decides to add more privacy to it. We all know what happened to ZCash. I'm not very technically familiar with it, but as far as I know, it is basically a Bitcoin fork with more privacy in mind. And this privacy backfired heavily as a few regulated exchanges were forced to remove it because its transactions were hard to trace. Now imagine the same thing happening to Bitcoin once we have a similar feature introduced to it. So it is a double-edged sword of sorts

Mimblewimble doesn't require a fork and is one of multiple solutions that are expected over the next decade.

Since we are only 10 years old in bitcoin, the need for privacy on bitcoin hasn't been a huge concern yet. If it were, the privacy coins would show more users and adoption, while bitcoin can still add sidechain and 2nd layer solutions at any point

I technically agree with this part

But we should take a deeper look and try to understand why privacy is not a big concern (or a concern at all). I have two perspectives on this. First of all, people are using cryptocurrencies for speculation mostly (that's kinda common knowledge but still worth mentioning in this context), and when you are using an exchange for trading, privacy is not what you typically look for or care about (apart from all coins necessarily being in the same league there by definition)

Further, there is a deeper paint to this as the majority of people (and that would be like 99% as I'm inclined to think) don't need the level of privacy that coins like Monero, ZCash, etc offer. These people are quite satisfied with what Bitcoin already has in this department (without any mimblewimble). I could even go so far as to say that a lot people would exchange a little less privacy for a little more profit and without thinking twice at that

also, when everyone predicts the same thing, it never happens. price targets at $1500 and below are a dime a dozen these days. it's certainly possible, but it really seems like bears are getting too confident.

i strongly disagree. if "everyone" predicts the same thing in a market then you can be 100% sure that it will happen. the real question is whether "everyone" is actually predicting $1500 or is it just some people who have been trying to short bitcoin.

for example majority of people were predicting the same trend as 2014 should repeat and while there was no logical reason for it, but it happened!

Mimblewimble doesn't require a fork and is one of multiple solutions that are expected over the next decade.

Since we are only 10 years old in bitcoin, the need for privacy on bitcoin hasn't been a huge concern yet. If it were, the privacy coins would show more users and adoption, while bitcoin can still add sidechain and 2nd layer solutions at any point

I technically agree with this part

But we should take a deeper look and try to understand why privacy is not a big concern (or a concern at all). I have two perspectives on this. First of all, people are using cryptocurrencies for speculation mostly (that's kinda common knowledge but still worth mentioning in this context), and when you are using an exchange for trading, privacy is not what you typically look for or care about (apart from all coins necessarily being in the same league there by definition)

Further, there is a deeper paint to this as the majority of people (and that would be like 99% as I'm inclined to think) don't need the level of privacy that coins like Monero, ZCash, etc offer. These people are quite satisfied with what Bitcoin already has in this department (without any mimblewimble). I could even go so far as to say that a lot people would exchange a little less privacy for a little more profit and without thinking twice at that

It's not a concern because it hasn't affected the price or the status that bitcoin is the digital gold that funds every altcoin project and ICO.

Sell it and move on if you want. The second privacy becomes an issue, the largest amount of developers in the space will have a timeline for solutions.

It has the largest amount of development and infrastructure throughout this space. Other things die if somehow bitcoin can't be used to fund all of these projects.

Mimblewimble doesn't require a fork and is one of multiple solutions that are expected over the next decade.

Since we are only 10 years old in bitcoin, the need for privacy on bitcoin hasn't been a huge concern yet. If it were, the privacy coins would show more users and adoption, while bitcoin can still add sidechain and 2nd layer solutions at any point

I technically agree with this part

But we should take a deeper look and try to understand why privacy is not a big concern (or a concern at all). I have two perspectives on this. First of all, people are using cryptocurrencies for speculation mostly (that's kinda common knowledge but still worth mentioning in this context), and when you are using an exchange for trading, privacy is not what you typically look for or care about (apart from all coins necessarily being in the same league there by definition)

Further, there is a deeper paint to this as the majority of people (and that would be like 99% as I'm inclined to think) don't need the level of privacy that coins like Monero, ZCash, etc offer. These people are quite satisfied with what Bitcoin already has in this department (without any mimblewimble). I could even go so far as to say that a lot people would exchange a little less privacy for a little more profit and without thinking twice at that

It's not a concern because it hasn't affected the price or the status that bitcoin is the digital gold that funds every altcoin project and ICO.

Sell it and move on if you want. The second privacy becomes an issue, the largest amount of developers in the space will have a timeline for solutions.

It has the largest amount of development and infrastructure throughout this space. Other things die if somehow bitcoin can't be used to fund all of these projects

And as much as I myself support the view that it is altcoins that are taking from Bitcoin and not the other way around, the majority think it is not the case. Besides, you can't say that Bitcoin is actually funding or supporting altcoins as many of them would be perfectly fine without Bitcoin. In fact, I'm strongly inclined to think that they will even do better without it (not all, but definitely some)

Bitcoin is something new and is very related to advanced technology so that spreaders take a long time.

no meyt bitcoin is not new . bitcoin first came out on the year 2009 ( if im not mistaken ) but your also right , the real adoption can occur in the future when all countries and people are now ready to accept bitcoin/crypto .

I don't think bitcoin and gold are mutually exclusive, and they have very similar characteristics in their scarcity and portability. Bitcoin is essentially digital gold. However, no investment is 100 percent safe from theft, and certainly not bitcoin when human error or negligence or theft among third-party custodians is involved.

I don't think bitcoin and gold are mutually exclusive, and they have very similar characteristics in their scarcity and portability. Bitcoin is essentially digital gold. However, no investment is 100 percent safe from theft, and certainly not bitcoin when human error or negligence or theft among third-party custodians is involved.

I agree with you. indeed there is no 100 percent safe investment because there must be theft. and in my opinion it is better to invest in bitcoin because it is not seen by others compared to gold that almost everyone uses it, but yes it comes back again, we must be smart to keep our bitcoin safe.

I don't think bitcoin and gold are mutually exclusive, and they have very similar characteristics in their scarcity and portability. Bitcoin is essentially digital gold. However, no investment is 100 percent safe from theft, and certainly not bitcoin when human error or negligence or theft among third-party custodians is involved.

I agree with you. indeed there is no 100 percent safe investment because there must be theft. and in my opinion it is better to invest in bitcoin because it is not seen by others compared to gold that almost everyone uses it, but yes it comes back again, we must be smart to keep our bitcoin safe.

Indeed all investment assets are not 100% safe and this has a risk, so to avoid risk we must remain cautious and alert. Don't be easily tempted and keep the keys to our assets well. But what is more characterless is bitcoin, the fluctuating value that often changes makes us manage every moment appropriately, the possibility of gold and fiat has a value that is not different and the market movement looks slower and more stable.